Title
Engaging regional stakeholders in scenario planning for the long-term preservation of ecosystem services in Northwestern Virginia
Short Title
Engaging regional stakeholders in scenario planning
Authors
Iara Lacher*1, Thomas Akre1, William J. McShea1, Marissa McBride2, Jonathan R. Thompson3, Craig Fergus1
1 Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, Front Royal, VA, USA
2 Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London, London, England, UK 3 Harvard Forest, Petersham, MA, USA
*Corresponding author - [email protected], (540) 635-0039
1500 Remount Road, Front Royal, VA 22630
Word Count 4084
Abstract
This case study describes the application of a framework for developing stakeholder-driven scenarios of the future. The purpose of the scenarios is to inform land use planning towards the protection of ecosystems and derivable ecosystem services in Northwestern Virginia. We held two scenario
development workshops with regional experts in conservation, agriculture, land use planning, policy, and economic development to create scenarios of land use in the northern Piedmont and northern Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. We structured the workshops around a framework that guided stakeholders through several steps eventually resulting in four unique scenarios describing the region in 50 years. Scenario narratives were defined by the intersection of highly influential and uncertain drivers of change relevant to land use planning and ecosystem services. Participants from the northern Shenandoah Valley region selected population growth and climate change adaptation as their scenario defining drivers, while participants from the northern Piedmont region selected planning strategy and climate change impact as their scenario defining drivers. Participants fleshed out scenarios into descriptive narratives that
incorporated qualitative and quantitative measures of change. Details from the scenario narratives informed land use change models to further quantify tradeoffs between land use planning decisions and ecosystem services. Individuals interested in using scenario planning to guide research efforts, conservation, or land use planning, or even to broaden perspectives on how to view the future, will find value in this case study.
Introduction
Scenario planning is an approach that uses alternate visions of the future to guide strategic long- term planning. This case study describes the framework for phase two of the scenario planning process:
scenario development. We present an example of scenario development completed by regional stakeholders; the ultimate purpose is to inform land use planning efforts that would contribute to the
preservation of ecosystem services. Additionally, the process outlined in this case study can serve as a framework adaptable for alternative purposes. This case study is directed towards professionals or graduate students with some prior knowledge or experience in scenario planning, conservation or land use planning, and interdisciplinary projects.
Case Examination
Background
Clean water and air, productive soils, pollination, climate regulation, and flood control are just a few of the many services human societies derive from healthy ecosystems. We depend on these ecosystem services for survival and overall well-being, and yet globally, opportunistic land use practices destroy or degrade ecosystems until their function ceases to provide these essential services. As our footprint on this earth rapidly grows, so does the need for strategic, conservation-oriented land use approaches.
Traditional planning approaches are based off of historic trends and consider multiple possibilities for action, but they are restricted in their focus to the most predictable (probable) outcomes. However, the future is rarely a simple reflection of past trends. Improbable events do happen, and if we do not consider them as a possibility and plan accordingly, we may be left woefully unprepared (1).
The scenario planning approach utilizes scenarios, or story lines, that provide alternative views of the future. These scenarios are created by the same decision makers they intend to serve. The development of scenarios involves careful consideration of how known agents of change, or drivers, influence present conditions. However, scenario planning is not about predicting the future. Scenarios should represent multiple futures bounded by plausible extremes. The practice of envisioning futures and connecting known drivers of change to the range of their possible influences on the future prompts participants to question their assumptions about the future, improving our ability to prepare for improbable yet potentially highly
impactful events (2). By considering multiple scenarios of the future, scenario planning can help us understand the long-term outcomes of decisions we make today, improving our ability to create desired futures. This is necessary in order to promote successful long-term planning, especially in complex or dynamic environments (3).
Scenario planning was originally developed by the United States military and later adopted by the business sector1, but it is increasingly employed across a host of other fields, including the environmental sciences. Environmental problem solving is inherently complex, requiring the consideration of ecological and socio-economic influences, the needs of multiple and diverse actors, and uncertain and potentially devastating outcomes of our choices. The scenario planning process’ flexible nature, ability to account for improbable outcomes, and input from decision makers and stakeholders make it uniquely suited for environmentally-focused planning efforts (1). For example, precedent has been set in the use of scenarios for guiding land use change models (3,4), species distribution models (5), climate change (6), impacts to biodiversity (7), management strategies for the protection of intertidal reefs (8), freshwater governance (9), and the future of ecosystem services at both local (10) and global scales (11). The involvement of experts and decision makers in the development of scenarios is integral to ensuring scenarios’ relevance and application in planning (3). Furthermore, scenarios bolstered by data for historical trends and measured relationships between drivers are more credible among decision makers and stakeholders (12). Involving both of these constituencies in scenario development can make scenarios more relevant to existing needs, thus further legitimizing the process and increasing the likelihood of integrating scenario-aided guidance into current and future plans (7).
1Scenario Planning first emerged in the years following World War 2 II as a method used by the United States Air Force to imagine actions of opponents (20). In the 1960s, Herman Kahn, who had been part of the Air Force effort, refined scenarios for use in foretelling financial growth in business. Later, Pierre Wack, in the newly formed department of Group Planning of the London offices of oil company Dutch/ Shell used scenarios to identify events that might affect the price of oil. His work at Shell prepared the company for an energy crisis that negatively affected their lesser-prepared competitors, propelling Shell to become the 2nd largest, and arguably most profitable, oil company worldwide (12).
The Changing Landscapes Initiative
The Changing Landscapes Initiative (CLI) is a research-based collaborative program, based in northwestern Virginia, USA, that aims to guide regional planning efforts towards the long-term
preservation of ecosystem services and the underlying systems that sustain them. The CLI originated in 2015 in response to concerns from a handful of regional stakeholders regarding future land use change impacts on ecosystem services such as clean air and water, recreation, view sheds, and historical and cultural sites.
The ability of the landscape to provide these ecosystem services is impacted by land use change, which is in turn affected by regional physiography, ecological health, and socio-economic variables.
Changes in total land use area represent only one measure of change. The configuration of these land use changes influences ecosystem health (e.g. habitat connectivity, forest quality, riparian buffers),
infrastructure cost (e.g. water access, transportation efficiency), and disaster risk (e.g. flood zones, drought, fire). It is the heightened awareness of these influences that has prompted regional interest in understanding land use change and its impacts on human health and well-being.
Given the unpredictability of long-term land use change and the need for an approach that
meaningfully integrates stakeholder feedback, the CLI has adopted scenario planning as an approach. The CLI utilizes scenario planning in a 4-phase process (Figure 1). Throughout this process, a highly
multidisciplinary group of scientists and stakeholders have contributed their expertise on ecological and socio-economic issues of regional importance.
Study Area
The Shenandoah National Park, (SNP), in the Blue Ridge Mountains of northwestern Virginia, serves as a geographic focal point for the 17,899 km2 study area, which includes fifteen counties and five
independent cities (Figure 2). The study area overlaps portions of the Piedmont, Ridge and Valley, and Blue Ridge ecoregions as well as three HUC 6 level watersheds that feed into the Chesapeake Bay. The Bay is the largest estuary in the United States, and it is considered to be one of the most productive and species-rich estuaries in the world. The population within the study area totaled 1,096,518 people in the 2010 census, with the highest densities located within independent cities and the stretch of land along the northeastern corner bordering Washington DC and Baltimore. Land cover in the region includes a mix of natural habitat and human land use, the distribution of which is largely driven by topography and elevation.
Under most recent available land cover data (2011), over half of the study area is forested (13) and about a third of that forest is protected under either the Shenandoah National Park or the George Washington National Forest (14). Forest cover outside of these protected lands is patchy and generally of lower quality.
Agriculture is the second most abundant land cover class in the study area and is a primary economic driver for much of Virginia (15). For our purposes, agriculture is represented by the land cover grasses (pasture and herbaceous vegetation), which based on 2011 land cover data covers approximately 33% of the study area and crop (tilled soils or woody crops), which covers approximately 5% of the study area (13).
Development (not including open space), is arguably the most impactful land cover class on many ecosystem services. In our study area, Development occupies approximately 7% of the study area and is focused in and around cities, as well as the westward edge of nearby DC-Baltimore metropolitan areas.
There is also valued history in the region in the form of eleven officially recognized Native American tribes and historical sites important to the American Revolution and Civil War.
The population of the region has been increasing steadily, averaging decadal increases of 26%
between 1970 and 2010 (16), and is projected to increase by approximately 620,000 people by the year 2040 (17). This increase in population will lead to more development in the form of housing, infrastructure, and transportation. Although development does not occupy a large amount of the landscape compared to
forest and agriculture, we measured an increase of 17% total developed area (+22,400 acres) just between the years 2001 and 2011, a trend we expect will continue with higher population numbers. Between 2001 and 2011 this translates into overall losses in private forests (approximately 21,000 acres) and agriculture (approximately 8,000 acres).
Stakeholders
We began soliciting potential stakeholders for this project in the months leading up to the workshops. The stakeholders that initially helped launch the CLI (our core advisory group2) provided introductions to our first suite of contacts, many of which were county and regional planners. We held in- person meetings where we presented our goals for the Changing Landscapes Initiative and listened for feedback on the kind of outcomes that would be useful for their work. We developed additional contacts through these meetings. We purposefully sought out stakeholders that represented a diverse array of expertise (Figure 3).
We held two scenario-building workshops in 2016, each representing a subset of the 15 counties2, in order to capture the diversity of values held by stakeholders in the study area. Participants within the
northern Shenandoah Valley workshop, hereafter referred to as the Valley, (August 25) represented counties that fall primarily west of the Blue Ridge Mountains, while participants in the northern Piedmont workshop, hereafter referred to as the Piedmont, (August 30) represented counties east of the Blue Ridge Mountains. Workshop participants included government officials, employees from private sectors, other non-profit organizations, concerned citizens, and volunteers. The workshops benefited from the
2 This decision was made based on recommendations from our core advisory group, a collection of four highly knowledgeable and influential stakeholders in the region. Members of our core advisory group serve have long been involved in conservation planning in the region. We consult with them for feedback on how to communicate our work to non-scientific audiences, navigate regional politics, and identify respected leaders in the community.
participants’ diverse knowledge and expertise for developing plausible and decision-relevant scenarios of landscape change.
Day of the Scenario Development Workshops
Through a series of activities (sensu 18), outlined below, participants were invited to discuss and explore recent trends in land use, identify and rank driving forces of change, and envision and produce plausible scenarios for their respective regions based on their current understanding of the evolving
landscape. While participants were presented with information on their own sub-region (S1), all questions, activities, and worksheets were the same for both workshops. Participants were divided into four teams with mixed expertise (one for each scenario quadrant; see step 4), within which they collaborated throughout the day.
The day began with an introductory presentation, which provided background information about the Changing Landscapes Initiative and the scenario planning process. These presentations included historical context on the emergence of scenario planning as a method and information specific to the approach of CLI. A historical timeline highlighting significant local and global events over the past 50 years provided participants with a reference for the passage of time.
We used a short visioning exercise to open the activity portion of the workshop and prime the participants to think imaginatively about the future (S2). During this exercise, participants were prompted to consider what the future of their landscape might look like and why. Participants were asked to close their eyes and imagine they were standing on top of a mountain looking out at either the Valley or the Piedmont in 2065. After picturing this landscape in their minds, participants wrote or sketched a description of their vision of the landscape in 50 years. Individual visions of the year 2065 varied greatly between
participants, with varying degrees of optimism for the future (Figure 4). Many participants stated they did not believe very much change would occur within the next 50 years.
The remainder of the day focused on the scenario development process (Figure 5). Activities
became progressively more collaborative from step 1 to step 6, outlined below.
The Scenario Development Process Step 1: Brainstorm drivers
To begin the process of building scenarios, participants were asked to individually think openly and develop a list of drivers of change3 (Table 1). We provided a worksheet for capturing external factors within the categories of Social, Technological, Economic, Environmental, and Political (STEEP; Table 2).
Each participant completed a worksheet listing drivers of change within each STEEP category, focusing on drivers that were likely to influence land use, specifically development, agriculture, forest, and conservation (Table 2).
Step 2: Describe causal chain
Acting individually, participants selected two drivers from across the different STEEP categories that they considered to be the most uncertain and impactful. They then described the impacts of these two drivers and outlined a causal chain to explicitly link each driver to impacts (Figure 6). This activity was used to help clarify their view of the cause and effect relationships for each driver.
Step 3: Prioritize drivers
3This is not the first time we brainstormed drivers for this region. In October 2015, we convened a group of regional and national scientists and resource experts for a two day meeting to identify information relevant to measuring land use impacts. This “Science Advisory Meeting” resulted in a list of regionally significant drivers of change as well as ecosystem services and metrics for measuring ecosystem health and human well-being. We used these lists to direct data collection (mostly from online sources) for the years 2001 and 2011. We presented this as “data” in the form of maps and basic calculations derived as guidance for step 6, Inhabiting Scenarios.
Participants shared their individually-selected top two drivers of land-use change with their
teammates and, as a team, selected the three drivers from different STEEP categories that they considered to be the most uncertain and impactful. Each team then worked to define poles describing the extreme ends of each driver. Poles needed to be clearly defined and divergent, with a difference large enough to result in diverse futures. Teams recorded each driver and its associated poles onto a sticky note in preparation for the next step.
Step 4: Choose Scenario Logic
Using a self-selected team spokesperson, teams described each of the three drivers and their associated diverging poles for all participants at the workshop. They then placed each sticky note with the driver written on it onto a scale of impact and uncertainty. Each subsequent team ranked their drivers on the same scale of impact and uncertainty in reference to all previously placed drivers, assisted by other
participants across all teams. Once all teams presented and ranked their drivers, facilitators selected 3-4 drivers that were collectively ranked high for both impact and uncertainty and created 2-3 large scenario matrices (see Box 1 for definition) with clearly defined drivers and poles4. These matrices represented all possible arrangements of each driver and pole combination (e.g. Driver 1 vs Driver 2, Driver 2 vs Driver 3, and Driver 1 vs Driver 3). Participants then voted for their preferred matrix for use in defining four
scenarios; these scenarios would then be the focus of the remainder of the workshop. Each of the four teams were assigned a quadrant of the matrix. The quadrant defined the bounds of their scenario and governed their narrative process. The Valley workshop settled on the drivers and two poles of high or low/stable
4In practice, this step was slightly different between the two workshops. This is because, during the first workshop (the Valley), there was much confusion regarding what constituted clear, divergent poles and long discussions between participants offered little clarification. Therefore, for the Piedmont workshop, instead of open discussion, facilitators selected drivers for the creation of scenario matrices. This also allowed more time in the afternoon for the remainder of the steps.
regional population growth, and successful/ unsuccessful adaptations to climate change (Figure 7). The Piedmont workshop settled on the drivers and two divergent poles of strategic/ ad-hoc planning and minimal/ severe impact of climate change (Figure 8).
Step 5: Write Scenario Narrative
The narrative building process is designed to bring each team’s scenario to life. We prompted participants to describe what life in their scenario would be like, suggesting they incorporate details about society, technology, politics, the economy, environment, and well-being. In order to avoid bias, we
communicated the importance of avoiding value-laden terms and stated that they must “live in the scenario, but not necessarily love it.” These scenarios were meant to capture a range of possible outcomes, some desirable, some less so, but all equally important in capturing the potential consequences of planning decisions made today. Teams elaborated on their assigned scenario by discussing pros and cons of their scenario and imagining day-to-day life for scenario inhabitants. We also instructed teams to incorporate drivers generated in activities from earlier in the day in development of a vivid narrative of the future of the region. Example narratives were provided to participants (10); we guided participants to write these as newspaper articles to encourage their imaginative spirit and encourage fun in envisioning the future landscape (S3).
Step 6: Inhabit Scenarios
For the final step, each team was asked to ‘inhabit’ the resulting scenarios. This step links the qualitative scenario narratives to quantitative values of land use change for use in future model
development. To approximate how scenarios conditions would affect rates of land use change within each scenario, teams completed a worksheet that prompted them to estimate gains and losses for development,
forest, agriculture (crops and grasses), and conservation. Teams were instructed to estimate geographic location, type, and rate of change in land use across their portion of the study area and to explain their rationale behind each estimate (S4). To guide this activity, participants received information regarding decadal trends in the Valley and the Piedmont regions between the years 2001 and 2011.
Workshop Outcomes
Overall, we succeeded in creating a platform for interdisciplinary, productive discussion on the varied perspectives of the current and future state of northwestern Virginia. Both workshops delivered on our desired outcomes as measured by the engaged, collaborative work of all participants. There was some overlap in driver selection between the two workshops. Interestingly, both workshop groups decided on climate change as a primary driver for their scenario matrices, with poles defined by either outcome
(Valley) or adaptation (Piedmont) responses to change. Not all teams fully completed scenario narratives by the end of the day. Therefore, after the workshops, we followed up with team leaders from the workshops to fill in gaps and ensure that the narratives we presented them held true to their original vision.
Comments recorded from participants of both workshops illustrated a shift in tone throughout the day, from more positive to negative as activities forced them to connect drivers to impact and measurable land use change. For some teams, fleshing out the scenarios proved challenging simply because of their lack of desire to see them come to fruition. For example, one team in the Valley workshop stated, “We are depressed. We don’t want to be living in this scenario.” Others did not see the scenario as realistic, e.g.
“We are all in agreement that we don’t see this scenario as feasible. We are ‘happy’ to say that this is not going to happen.” These comments highlight the importance of emphasizing that scenarios are not meant as a prediction of the future, rather to prepare us for those improbable yet potentially highly impactful events.
Evaluations distributed at the end of each workshop day revealed that most participants found themselves
thinking beyond the bounds of their expectations for the future. As for organization and facilitation of the workshop, there were overwhelmingly positive responses. Although, some participants commented that they would have preferred prior reading materials or exercises to be provided to allow them to better prepare, something we would recommend for future workshops.
Future Uses
Outputs from the scenario development workshops have already been used to inform the creation of four land use change models that represent stakeholder-driven scenarios for the entire study area, (the combined Valley and Piedmont sub-regions). The outputs from these land use models are being used to investigate how the different scenarios might influence ecosystem services such as freshwater quality and quantity, recreation, view sheds, and biodiversity. As part of leveraging the scenario planning platform, CLI will continue ongoing efforts to engage the regional community. Results of our work will be disseminated to regional policy and planning entities and the scientific community in formats varying from intuitive interactive web mapping tools to detailed databases and geospatial mapping products to support the conservation of resources vital to the economic and social well-being of northern Virginia people and wildlife.
Conclusion
This case study summarized the steps involved in scenario development using two regional workshops in northwestern Virginia as examples. The workshops engaged regional stakeholders, from an opening visioning exercise, to the development of scenario narratives, to guidance on how to translate qualitative stakeholder inputs into a quantitative information relevant for the building of land use change models. The contribution of participating stakeholders is important for connecting land use change to
potential pathways for how policy and planning decisions may influence planning trajectories. The process of scenario development provides a platform upon which to build new connections, identify shared
conservation and planning goals, locate information needs and gaps in knowledge or data, and highlight key opportunities for the sharing of limited resources. In addition, we feel it is important to communicate that scenario development is only one piece of the scenario planning process, which can and should be iterative in nature. If we want to use this approach for policy change we must maintain connections with
stakeholders in the region and continually keep pace with changing policies and ideals. We believe that the outcomes of scenario planning and development. Each of these outcomes has the potential to be useful in a variety of other conservation efforts from projects more tightly focused on individual communities (19) to global studies responding to climate change (6) or broad scale ecosystem services (11).
Case Study Questions
• While participants represented a diverse array of expertise and backgrounds, individuals from the conservation and natural resources sector were most heavily represented at the workshops, while sectors such as land development and energy were comparatively under represented (Figure 3).
Why might this be? What are some approaches for engaging a more diverse group for subsequent workshops and meetings?
• Workshop participants expressed a desire to better understand the process of scenario development and how it fit into the overall goals of CLI. Background information on the project was
disseminated beforehand, but not information on the scenario development process. What are ways to more effectively prepare workshop participants for the activities of the day? What is the benefit/
cost of workshop participants knowing what the activities would entail prior to the workshop?
• The two workshops diverged in their selection of drivers. Why might this divergence occur? What is the significance of this divergence if it A) represents regional difference in how participants perceive risk and uncertainty? And B) represents the effect of the views of an influential workshop participant?
• The goal of the CLI is to provide information to influence decision making related to land use and ecosystem services. What are some ideas for making the outputs of the CLI more accessible and relevant to individuals responsible for land use planning in the Valley and the Piedmont regions? In order to effectively achieve this goal, products from the CLI must relate to stakeholder values. How can these values be identified?
• Regional and local politics may make open and honest communication difficult as agencies, planning groups, local government, and conservation organizations vie for attention and funding.
Even with like-minded goals, it can be challenging to overcome decades of status quo. How could challenges like this influence the outcome of a program like the CLI?
• The eventual outcome of the scenarios developed at the workshops is integration into land use change models. These models output projections, not predictions, of the future at a resolution of 30*30m pixels for each land cover class. What are the potential challenges with communicating the model outputs to stakeholders? The general public? How might these challenges be overcome?
Author Contributions
Iara Lacher – Project Lead, Investigation, Formal Analysis, Writing Thomas Akre- Project Administration, Investigation, Funding Acquisition William J. McShea- Project Administration, Resources, Funding Acquisition Marissa McBride- Framework methodology, Writing
Jonathan Thompson- Conceptualization, Resources Craig Fergus- Data Analysis and Curation, Investigation
Acknowledgments
We thank the contribution of everyone who has given time and energy to the Changing Landscapes Initiative thus far, including our core advisory group, workshop participants, meeting facilitator Carole Napolitano, and dedicated interns (Ellery Ruther, Rachel Meulman, Brandon Hays, Sammie Alexander, Sultana Majid, and Sarah Halperin). We would also like to thank Carlyle Howard for significant editing, suggestions, and critiques during the creation of this manuscript.
Funding
Changing Landscapes Initiative (CLI) is supported through partnerships between the Smithsonian
Conservation Biology Institute, Virginia Working Landscapes, the Piedmont Environmental Council, and the Shenandoah National Park Trust.
Competing Interests
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Supporting Information
- S1-Descriptive maps illustrating background variables as provided to workshop participants (ppt).
- S2-Worksheets for scenario development activities. These include envisioning practice, driver selection and impact, and inhabiting scenarios (doc.). Adapted and used with permission from McBride et.al. (2017) (18).
- S3-Scenario narratives written as newspaper articles for each workshop and each scenario (doc).
- S4-Completed inhabiting scenarios tables from both the Valley and the Piedmont workshops (doc).
References
1. Rowland, E., H. Cross, and H. Hartmann. 2014. Considering Multiple Futures : Scenario Planning To Address Uncertainty in Natural Resource Conservation. Washington, DC: US Fish and Wildlife Service.
2. Merrie, A., Keys, P., Metian, M., Österblom, H. 2018. Radical ocean futures-scenario development using science fiction prototyping. Futures. 95:22-32.
3. Sohl, T. L., & Claggett, P. R. 2013. Clarity versus complexity: Land-use modeling as a practical tool for decision-makers. Journal of Environmental Management, 235–243.
4. Blumstein M, Thompson JR. 2015. Land-use impacts on the quantity and configuration of ecosystem service provisioning in Massachusetts, USA. Journal of Applied Ecology.
5. Coreau, A., Pinay, G., Thompson, J.D., Cheptou, P.O., Mermet, L. 2009. The rise of research on futures in ecology: Rebalancing scenarios and predictions. Ecology Letters. 12(12):1277–86.
6. USGCRP. 2017. Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I.
Wuebbles, D.J., Fahey, D.W., Hibbard, K.A., Dokken, D.J., Stewart, B.C., Maycock, T.K., editors.
Washington, DC, USA: U.S. Global Change Research Program.
7. Titeux, N., Henle, K., Mihoub, J.B., Regos, A., Geijzendorffer, I.R., Cramer, W., Verburg, P.H., Brotons, L. 2016. Biodiversity scenarios neglect future land-use changes. Glob Chang Biol. 2016;22 (7):2505–2515.
8. Addison, P.F.E., de Bie, K., Rumpff, L.2015. Setting conservation management thresholds using a novel participatory modeling approach. Conservation Biology. 29(5):1411–22.
9. Keeler., L.W., Wiek, A., White, D.D., Sampson, D.A., 2015. Linking stakeholder survey, scenario analysis, and simulation modeling to explore the long-term impacts of regional water governance regimes. Environmental Science and Policy. 48:237–49.
10. Malinga, R., L. J. Gordon, R. Lindborg, and G. Jewitt. 2013. Using Participatory Scenario Planning to Identify Ecosystem Services in Changing Landscapes. Ecology and society. 18 (4).
11. Kubiszewski, I., Costanza, R., Anderson, S., Sutton, P. 2017. The future value of ecosystem services: Global scenarios and national implications. Ecosystem Services. 26:289–301.
12. Schwartz P. 1991. The Art of the Long View. New York, New York, USA: Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc.
13. Homer, C.G., Dewitz, J.A., Yang, L., Jin, S., Danielson P, Xian G, et al. 2015. Completion of the 2011 National Land Cover Database for the conterminous United States-Representing a decade of land cover change information. Photogrammetric Engineering Remote Sensing. 81(5):345–54.
14. US Geological Survey (USGS), Gap Analysis Program (GAP). 2016. Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US).
15. Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Virginia Agriculture Facts & Figures.
Date Accessed: August 2016
16. U.S. Census Bureau. 1995. Population of Counties by Decennial Census: 1900 to 1990. Forstall, R.L., editor.
17. Demographics Research Group, Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service. 2017. Virginia Population Projections. Charlottesville, Virginia. http://demographics.coopercenter.org
18. McBride, M.F., Lambert, K.F., Huff, E.S., Theoharides, K.A., Field, P., Thompson, J.R. 2017.
Increasing the effectiveness of participatory scenario development through codesign. Ecology and Society. 22(3).
19. Bennett, N.J., Kadfak, A., Dearden, P. 2016. Community-based scenario planning: a process for vulnerability analysis and adaptation planning to social-ecological change in coastal communities.
Environment, Development and Sustainability. 18(6):1771-1799.
20. Bradfield, R., Wright, G., Burt, G., Cairns, G., Van Der Heijden, K. 2005. The origins and evolution of scenario techniques in long range business planning. Futures. 37(8):795–812.
21. Lacher I. Systematic Conservation Planning in the Anthropocene [Internet]. DellaSala DA, Goldstein MI, editors. The Encyclopedia of the Anthropocene. Elsevier Inc.; 2018. 461-169 p. Available from:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-409548-9.10290-8
22. Beach DM, Clark D a. Scenario planning during rapid ecological change : lessons and perspectives from workshops with southwest Yukon wildlife managers. Ecol Soc. 2015;20(1):61.
Figure Legends
Figure 1. Overview of the Scenario Planning process. Figure borrowed with author permission (21).
Figure 2. The study area in Northwestern Virginia with counties, watersheds, and sub-regional division used to place participants into one of two workshops; one for the Valley and one for the Piedmont.
Figure 3. Graph displaying the results of a pre-workshop survey question (Box 2) asking participants to identify their area of professional expertise.
Figure 4. Examples of participant visions of the future resulting from the envisioning exercise including descriptions (A) and illustrations (B) from the Piedmont workshop and descriptions (C) and illustrations (D) from the Valley workshop.
Figure 5. Flow chart of the scenario development process used in the workshops. Participants brainstormed drivers of change, created causal links between drivers and impact, ranked these drivers by scale of impact and uncertainty, selected a scenario matrix of focus, and composed storylines and quantitative estimates of land use change for each scenario. Example scenario narrative from Beach and Clark (2015) (22).
Figure 6. Example of a Causal Chain from the workshop describing the connection between regulations (political driver) and the changing geographic distribution of populations and choice of housing (societal impact). The text reads: “Regulation on rural development coupled with (decreased) regulations for urban growth could shift population distribution and housing choices. Rappahanock County is a good example of a county where zoning regulations have impacted population growth over time.”
Figure 7. Scenario Matrix for the Valley workshop with highlights from each scenario narratives.
Figure 8. Scenario Matrix for the Piedmont workshop with highlights from each scenario narratives.
Figures Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Boxes
Boxes and Tables
Box 1. Definitions of terms provided to participants during scenario development workshops.
Box 2. Survey questions sent to participants prior to each workshop.
Working landscapes: The human contribution to landscapes and ecosystems that provide ecosystem services and market goods which interact in a mutually beneficial manner.
System: A set of interacting or interdependent components that together form a complex whole.
Ecosystem: A community of living organisms that interact with each other as well as with non- living components in their environment. A healthy ecosystem is one that efficiently recycles energy and nutrients between living and non-living components.
Ecosystem Function: The process of moving energy and nutrients (within the physical environment and between organisms interacting with each other).
Ecosystem Services: Positive outcomes that humans can benefit from due to properly
functioning ecosystems. They are divided into four different classes: provisioning, regulating, supporting, and cultural.
Scenario: A possible future state that represents plausible conditions under different assumptions. It is not a prediction or forecast, because it is not based on any probabilities.
Each scenario is a snapshot of what the future may look like.
Driver: An environmental or human agent that causes an indirect or direct change to one or more ecosystem functions.
Uncertainty: A situation in which there is imperfect or unknown information and the likelihood of a future outcome is incalculable or indefinite.
Causal Relationship: Linkages describing the relationship of cause and effect.
Scenario Matrix: The intersection of two perpendicular lines, each representing one driver with divergent poles, which results in four uniquely defined quadrats.
• What is your primary organization affiliation?
• What do you consider your primary field of expertise?
• Have you ever taken part in a scenario-building exercise before?
• Which geographic scale do you most frequently work in?
• On average, what is the time frame you or your organization frequently plan(s) for?
• What are your opinions about planning for land use change?
• What is the degree to which information and trends from the past, present, and/or expected future would typically weigh in on your decision making process when developing a long-term oriented strategy?
• What objectives (i.e. goals, aims) would you see as important in guiding a long-term planning process?
• Based on your best understanding of the current situation in the Northern Shenandoah Valley or
Piedmont region, estimate the percent of land that is currently developed, forested, grasses, in agricultural crop production, and held in conservation.
• Estimate plausible future percentages for land uses in the Northern Shenandoah Valley or Piedmont region for the year 2050.
• Which county/city do you currently reside in?
Table 1. Drivers brainstormed by participants from each of the two scenario development workshops. † indicate the drivers used in the final scenario matrices.
Drivers from the Valley
workshop Drivers from the Piedmont
workshop Climate change †
Conservation incentives Demography
Energy development Income
Infrastructure development Planning and zoning Political stability Political will Population †
Climate change † Demography Economic disparity Energy development Planning and zoning Political will †
Technological innovation Transportation cost
Table 2. The STEEP (Social, Technological, Environmental, Economic and Policy) framework with broad examples of drivers (20).
Social Technological Economic Environmental Political
Demography Gender Roles Ethnicity Culture Tastes Behaviors Beliefs
Innovation Adoption Application Business Models
Gross Domestic Product Industries Driving Growth Funding
Business Cycles
Air Quality Water Quality Arable Land Climate Change Resources
Laws Regulations Elections
Power Distribution
